CURRENT SCIENCE
Volume 106
Numbe r 2
25 January 2014
GUEST EDITORIAL
Inverting the pyramid of scientific hierarchy
An exchange with a leading journal led me to reflect on
science and how it is practiced. The exchange concerned
the role and importance of the corresponding author in a
publication. When our article published in a leading ecology journal was featured in Nature, the journal
(Nature) stated that it was their policy to mention only
the name of the corresponding author in Research Highlights about other publications. This of course seemed to
imply that the corresponding author was more important
than the first author (in this case, a student).
In a wide set of scientific disciplines, it does appear
that the corresponding author is generally assumed to be
the senior author, the Principal Investigator of the project,
or the Supervising Faculty. This author is usually the last
in a list of authors, but clearly important in some way.
This notion is further strengthened by the fact that some
journals now allow joint corresponding authorship.
But is Corresponding authorship interpreted the same
way in different disciplines? Clearly, in much of suborganismal biology, the corresponding author is the big
cheese, the Principal Investigator or head of the lab or
group. However, after talking to many of my colleagues
in ecology and evolutionary biology, it turns out that their
supervisors and they interpreted the ‘corresponding
author’ quite differently. The corresponding author was
the one who submitted the manuscript and dealt with the
correspondence with the journal, especially because the
work was primarily the student’s. Sometimes, supervisors
may have acted as authors for correspondence since students may have been in transit, or as in our case, as a coordinator for a largish group of co-authors.
In sub-organismal biology, the Principal Investigator or
Supervisor may indeed be the driver or engine behind the
research, the one who sees the big picture, and guides his
or her students and researchers through a series of experiments that will eventually contribute to remarkable
revelations in science. The first author is often a student,
researcher (or even postdoc) who is a mere cog in the larger wheel. In such instances, it seems but natural that the
‘Corresponding Author’ should receive the bulk of the
credit for the success of the research. On the other hand,
in ecology, behaviour and evolutionary biology (especially but not only in field-based research), the student is
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 106, NO. 2, 25 JANUARY 2014
often a very independent researcher, who formulates the
questions, designs the study, conducts the sampling and
analysis, writes the paper and contributes overall substantially to the genesis and completion of the end product,
the paper. In all of this, the Guide is just that – a guide.
In field-based research, the student has the additional
responsibility of spending long periods away from the
supervisor (weeks or months at a time), sometimes from
any sort of colleague that one can have discussions with,
where he/she must make decisions about sampling design
and data collection. Of course, this is less a crisis in the
age of the mobile phone, but still requires a degree of
independence that differs from those who can chat with
their colleagues across the lab bench, or walk into their
supervisor’s office.
Given that all my research experience has been in the
discipline of ecology, I had always believed that the first
author was the most significant player in the enterprise.
At the end of the day, it did not seem right that the corresponding author should receive more credit than the first
author for the research. I will note here that this commentary is not about the order of authorship, which also varies between disciplines and has been the subject of much
debate.
On investigating the role of corresponding authors on
Nature’s own website (http://www.nature.com/authors/
policies/authorship.html), I discovered the following. The
site says (annotated by me):
‘The corresponding (submitting) author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and with
managing communication between coauthors. Before
submission, the corresponding author ensures that all
authors are included in the author list, its order has
been agreed by all authors, and that all authors are
aware that the paper was submitted. ……….. After
acceptance, the proof is sent to the corresponding
author, who circulates it to all coauthors and deals
with the journal on their behalf……….The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all
content in the proof, in particular that names of coauthors are present and correctly spelled, and that
addresses and affiliations are current.’
139
GUEST EDITORIAL
Post publication, the corresponding author’s responsibilities are:
‘The journal regards the corresponding author as the
point of contact for queries about the published
paper……..This author does not have to be the senior
author of the paper or the author who actually supplies
materials; this author's role is to ensure enquiries are
answered promptly on behalf of all the co-authors.’
The last line is telling. By Nature’s own admission,
the corresponding author is not (necessarily) the most
important intellectual contributor to a piece of scientific
research. And yet that appears to be the underlying
paradigm in science, or at least in much of biology,
today.
There is another factor. Corresponding authorship is
often treated as a badge of honour, either in peer recognition or even in formal processes such as job promotion,
or election to scientific societies and academies. Hence,
collaborators vie for it, and students are denied an opportunity because their supervisors feel that they require it.
Or would be looked down on if they were not corresponding authors on their papers.
Science clearly works differently in its various forms
and disciplines. But why should ecology be different
from other biological sciences? Perhaps it has something
to do with the fact that ecology and evolutionary biology
go beyond most sub-organismal biological sciences in
examining ultimate causation. We ask the critical ‘Why’
question. And maybe this plays a role in the contribution
that the field makes to the philosophy and practice of science. It is a student-driven science and promotes the
value of independent thinking.
For the last four years, students of ecology, evolution
and conservation science have organized their own conference in several different parts of the country, from
Bangalore to Guwahati to Dehradun, and now Nagaland.
Every aspect of the conference is planned and executed
by a student body, and decisions are taken through debate
and discussion (and online voting). The students plan
and conduct over 20 workshop on a range of topics in
ecology and evolution, and provide training and skills in
quantitative ecology, genetics, GIS, and so on. Various
speakers and experts are invited to conduct workshops
and give plenary talks. Over 300 students attend the
meeting each year. Several thousand now populate their
mailing lists.
140
How did such a movement come about? In 2009, students of a few academic institutions and non-government
research organizations in Bangalore and Mysore came together informally to share their experiences. When more
than a 100 participants attended, it became apparent that
the community needed such a forum. Soon enough, other
students of ecology around the country asked why this
was restricted to this small group, and organically, the
meeting became national, and was named YETI (Young
Ecologists Talk and Interact). After a couple of years in
Bangalore, students from other regions expressed an i nterest in conducting the event. On two occasions, the
event has been held in the Northeast, a region where students have had little opportunity to interact with peers
and engage with other ecologists. From the beginning, the
YETI community has been concerned about this disparity
in access to facilities, funding and support, and strived to
provide opportunities to their peers from less privileged
areas and institutions, including by moving the conference around. This maturity and vision matches and sometimes surpasses what their more grizzled colleagues have
shown. Of course, there has also been widespread support
from established ecologists, both post-doctoral fellows
and young faculty around the country.
Few people would disagree that the growth of science
itself is likely to be served by supporting and promoting
independent young researchers. But, in practice, the scientific establishment is hierarchical, and not just in India
of course. The Nature incident only serves as a small
illustration of the attitudes within our community, but it
would be well worth taking heed of these signals. We
often wonder why, despite the size of its community,
India lags behind other countries in producing quality science. At least in part, the deeply entrenched hierarchies in
our system must be to blame. From government committees
to science societies to academic institutions, our systems
are inherently top-down. Perhaps it is time to turn the
tables and invert our notion of importance, placing students
in the top part of that pyramid. As much as we would like
to be centres of scientific revolutions, we should equally
aspire to be the substrates for such revolutions.
Kartik Shanker
Centre for Ecological Sciences,
Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560 012, India
e-mail: kshanker@ces.iisc.ernet.in
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 106, NO. 2, 25 JANUARY 2014